@Gee3 , ln other words, in order to qualify to partake in a public tender
process ,the t endering company must have a history of previous
transparency regarding taxation? (say the last 3 hrs)
Surely that is allready the case isn’t it ??!
Donkeyman! 
that would narrow down the list of companies wishing to participate in a tender somewhat! 
And companies (like Boots Opticians who wrote to my today) reduce the size of their tax bill by spending the max budget on useless mailshots. That helps keep a lot of people busy, from stationers, to ad agents, to postmen, to recyclers. Life is a money go round.
I am pretty dim on a lot of Polical workings…I have read about all sorts of bad policies by the various Prime Ministers who sold the British Isles off to any takers…made the Isles look rich for while…certainly fooled so many of us.
But the one that sticks out for me is the Shipping Company awarded the Contract as ‘‘was a come on down the price is right’’…
Just an off the cuff knowledge…
When my parents estate was valued for Probate it was kept to under £500,000, even though the Property alone would have been worth nearer to £850,000 at that time…The estate would have 100% been worth over 1 million…but my Son had no tax to pay…sorry thieving ex Son… 
@AnnieS, Exactly, why do we need more companies competing if most of
those “companies” have niether the equipment,nor the expertise to carry out
the contract ??
All the more reason to question every competing companies history??
Just look at the Grenfell Tower debacle ??
Talking of which !!
Donkeyman! 
I bet they sold our Sand to the Arabs… 
@AnnieS, That reminds me of the seven dwarfs song
" We’re busy doing nothing, working the whole day through !
Trying to find lots of work not to do !
We’re busy going nowhere, is’nt it just a crime ?
We try to be unhappy, but we never do get the time !!"
Very apt l think??
Donkeyman!
Hi
It is was we voted for.
No Protection, a simple free market economy.
Get over it
We have a very restricted economy, no safeguards, the Market Rules.
That is what we voted for.
Simple and Brutal, the big boys are making a fortune out of Brexit, the plebs, like me, are not.
Well the main point of any tender exercise is to appoint an organisation impartially based on merit using scoring against a number of relevant criteria. I don’t believe the ethical stance of the company, be it corruption or tax evasion is usually on the scoring list. Without any tenders you have the whole “cash for mates” arrangements creeping in.
In a tender you would look at the financial history to check financial stability. But there’s a limit to how deeply you can look at each and every company, particularly if you have a large number of organisations to review. I’m not aware they look at any tax evasion history.
How did they do that?
@AnnieS , Yes, what you just said sounds like a replica of the spiel that the
tender board issues to justify!its existence Annie ??
But it is obvious they are not living up to the spiel when things like the
ferry company Dianne pointed out take place so often ??
Seems the guardians of the public purse need guardians themselves ??
Donkeyman!
It’s a standard process for business transactions, not a public sector model. These are legal requirements to avoid corruption and greased palms. How individual organisations implement these laws are down to individual assessment if they cut corners. But the law itself is not spiel but common sense if you want some test of efficiency and feasibility applied & backscratching avoided.
@AnnieS , Do you mean to say that the ferry company was not involved in
a government tender to supply a service to the government in the case we
are discussing ??
From what l read it was the government that called for, and awarded the
contract to supply and operate a cargo ferrying service to a company that
not only had no ships, but also had no experience in ferrying whatever ?!
That’s why the list of conditions supplied by government are nothing more
than spiel for the public’s benefit and not to be taken seriously ??
Donkeyman! 
Hi
Public Sector Tendering is not corruption proof.
If it was Serco would have gone out of business, Fujitsu would be bankrupt and huge MoD suppliers would have ceased to exist.
How individual organisations implement procurement laws are down to individual assessment if they cut corners. It doesn’t mean the procurement process is not needed.
Indeed. Plus any organisation can also challenge a decision. I think that was the case with Virgin healthcare a few years ago (the council lost). Or De La Rue’s abandoned legal challenge (passports). I wonder how many legal challenges there have been in tenders between private organisations.